Los Angeles Fire Department to Pay Approximately $500,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment

No Comments

sexual harassment

The Los Angeles Fire Department is about to pay nearly $500,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by one of its employees at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

For twenty-six long years, Anthony Almeida served the community of Los Angeles under the Los Angeles Fire Department. In 2007, he filed a sexual harassment lawsuit at the EEOC against the Fire Department.

In his lawsuit, Almeida stated how his fellow worker mocked him, used explicit words and called him sexual nicknames after they learned about the sexual abuse that Almeida suffered from a Catholic Church.

Despite Almeida’s repeated complaint to the management of the said Fire Department, all his efforts were proved null and vain. During their investigation regarding Almeida’s complaint, the EEOC found out that the Fire Department failed to sufficiently accommodate the complaints

It was proven in the lawsuit that the Fire Department violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC found a reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the law occurred.

To avoid further litigations, the Fire Department has agreed to enter a three-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC and Almeida, who is represented by his private lawyer.

Many people do not understand what comprises sexual harassment. In truth and in fact, apart from unwanted touching and comments, sexual harassment and discrimination also include dubious images display, sexual nature comments and gesture even though not totally directed to a person but are made in their presence.

In Almeida’s case, he made a wise decision by securing his own private defender in addition to the protection provided by the EEOC. Having the EEOC which provides extensive protection against harassments and discrimination for all types of employees and having Los Angeles lawyers who have dealt with hundreds of such cases of sexual harassment is a good combination.

New York State Government Cracks Down Compensation Scammers

No Comments

Over the previous weeks, the State Government of New York has arrested 18 people who have been charged with workers’ compensation fraud.

A worker’s compensation fraud is a crime and a civil violation which mainly affects the consumers and businesses in many ways. It is actually considered as a serious crime by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Common victims of such deceitful practice are the honest business owners and tax payers who are forced to carry the burden of higher premiums.

Imagine a tax payer or an insurer is required to make up for every dollar paid out because of insurance fraud with a corresponding increase in premiums. Because of that, the cost of doing business in his or her state also increases. Business growth and success are being discouraged in this system.

To crack down compensation fraud, the Office of the Inspector General of the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board, the New York State Insurance Fund and other insurers headed by the New York Department of Financial Services, conducted a joint-investigation.

As a result of the said investigation, 18 compensation fraud artists were arrested. The investigation also found out that those arrested individuals are currently working while receiving worker’s compensation claim.

Definitely, those arrested compensation scammers have never expected that there will come a time that they will be under investigation for the compensation claim that they are currently receiving.

Sometimes life is unfair. Come to think of it, there are thousands of poor people who are permanently disabled out there who cannot be able to obtain such benefits; while those fraud artists are capable of working are constantly receiving the compensation claim that they don’t deserve. Meanwhile, tax payers and insurers are doing their best to pay for the high premium taxes while scammers are just freely enjoying their earned money.

Bravo to the agencies behind the successful –joint-investigation done to eliminate compensation frauds. They’ve done a good job.

President Obama Racial Discrimination in Employment Cases Still High

No Comments

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the well-known leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement, has been immortalized as President Barrack Obama inaugurated the civil rights leader’s granite memorial statue Sunday at the West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C.

King is widely recognized as one of the prominent figures of initiatives to end racial segregation and racial discrimination in the United States in 1960s. His efforts were realized when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted.

continue reading…

Employment Background Checks: What’s Illegal and what’s not

No Comments

Employers generally conduct background checks on potential recruits and job applicants. There are several ways how employers can obtain information about an applicant. They can use public records to make a background investigation on an applicant.

However, some states prohibit access to certain information or public records that employers can use in hiring decisions. Although information of public record is commonly not restricted, the use of certain public records in hiring decisions may be prohibited.

Just recently, the California State Senate has passed a law prohibiting the use of credit information or credit checks on job applicants. The law-making body argued that credit checks do not actually provide employers with information or reasons on a person’s poor credit rating. As a result, the state Senate banned it use.
The bill is now with the state Assembly for final approval.

continue reading…

Unlawful and Uncaring Employer Practice Ends in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

1 Comment

Being pregnant is difficult enough but being unfairly treated while pregnant is twice as hard.

In a recent case involving a female employee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged her employer, a Washington DC-based government contractor, with violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for unfair treatment of its pregnant employees.

The lawsuit was filed after the federal agency found that violations were committed when the company promulgated its corporate maternity policy, which imposed greater burdens on pregnant women than those imposed on other employees who have similar abilities. According to the EEOC, the company violated these federal laws because it enforced and mandated in its policy the suspension of pregnant women unless they submit a medical release and required them to submit to mandatory medical examinations that are not job-related or consistent with business needs.

continue reading…

Disability Discrimination, Retaliation and other Employment Claims

No Comments

Disability is often determined on a case to case basis. Based on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition, to be considered disabled, one must be substantially limited by his condition or disability and because of this, the employee cannot work or unable to perform his duties in a broad range of jobs. However, a disability that only affects an employee’s ability to perform a few specific jobs is not covered by the ADA definition.

Therefore, an employee cannot be presumed disabled unless his condition is evaluated and certified by a doctor. Similarly, it is illegal for an employer to simply say that an employee is disabled based on certain assumptions or allegations.

continue reading…

Derogatory Remarks as a Form of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

1 Comment

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), may include the following acts:

• unwelcome sexual advances
• requests for sexual favors
• other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature

All these acts “ constitute sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.”

continue reading…

Older Entries